QQ:41806229 点击这里在线咨询代写
网  址:http://www.assignment.cc/
代写paper,Ethnographic Film
发表日期:2013-09-17 08:35:06 | 来源:assignment.cc | 当前的位置:首页 > 代写paper > 正文
Ethnographic Film

As a means of an anthropological representation of cultures and societies, documentation through film has been a longstanding tool in the ethnographers’ kit. From the very earliest attempts to film distant cultures and make their lives known to an audience, sometimes clumsily and with much artifice involved, and at other times producing a vivid, if partial example of other lives, moving images have helped to shape a fragmented understanding of the world. This fragmentary nature is itself, however, the forum for much discussion on the role of film in anthropology and has generated a heated and ongoing debate on the merits of visual as well as textual analysis in ethnographic research. Early films shot for general consumption sought to depict simple scenes, their original value being based upon audience interest in the novelty of moving pictures, “fascinating because of their illusory power… and exoticism” (Gunning 1990: 57). As narrative form to some extent replaced these earliest examples, so the beginnings of anthropological films emerged. In the early films, both those with a visually dominant structure as well as those with a narrative thread, technology itself was being celebrated and demonstrated. Film in this earliest form was clearly not so concerned with the ethics of representation and the struggles between objectivity and subjectivity but aimed primarily to provide a visually stimulating and exciting experience based on technological advancements. Such a beginning for film based on the novelty of watching may seem a long way from current filming methods and practices, however, “in this primitive world, we find structures tantalisingly prophetic of some we know today” (Vaughan 1990: 63). Early films may have depicted people in everyday tasks, working, shopping or playing, not so much as documentary enquiries but nevertheless offering up individuals and social groups as in some way being worthy of watching and recording, for the pleasure or instruction of an audience. Whilst such images can not be called distinctly ethnographic in their purposes, the observation of people, their daily existence and the networks within which social groups move remain at the heart of anthropological study and human interest.

“Images are everywhere… They are inextricably woven with our personal identities, narratives, lifestyles, cultures and societies, as well as with definitions of history, space and truth”. (Pink 2001: 17).

So, from the earliest film, curiosity about how people live, and the seemingly privileged intimacy the camera appears to offer have, to some extent, guided social enquiry and documentation.

With time, works of fiction and more consciously planned linear filming superseded earlier forms of spectacle where the “energy moves outward towards an acknowledged spectator rather than inward towards the character-based situations essential to… narrative” (Gunning 1990: 59). InNanook of the North (1922), Flaherty is recognised as producing the first feature length documentary which portrayed the lives of ‘Nanook’ and his family. Made at a time when cameras were unwieldy and barely portable, many of the shots for this documentary had to be staged, a practice considered unethical by some quarters, but understandable when considering the cumbersome state of equipment at the time. In this example of salvage ethnography, hunting and survival skills that were being surpassed by new methods are recorded albeit in a re-produced way, dramatic licence, much relied upon for many years to come, propels and enables the narrative structure. With this early example of film based anthropology, current questions of authenticity and ethics were perhaps for the first time raised and struggled with. Nanook has been “discussed variously for its authenticity, its fakery, its romanticism” (MacDougall 1995: 229). It serves as both documentary evidence of a culture and also provides a narrative story and plot that draws the viewer in to a vicarious sharing of the Inuit’s, at times, perilous life. Flaherty’s approach, it could be argued is more respectful than some contemporary renderings of cultures, as his innovative technique offered up “an indigenous person as the hero of the film… [it] was not the usual fanciful portrayal of noble savagery” (MacDougall 1995: 230).

The question of vanishing cultures and the nature of change in all societies are pertinent to Flaherty’s work, he recorded a culture in the midst of technological change, as methods of hunting and providing shelter where adapting, and he managed to maintain, despite some carefully reconstructed scenes, a sense of respect. For the most part, although this is arguable, he avoided privileging spectacle over the individual in his filming; however, it is acknowledged that some scenes owed more to story telling than reality. “It is easy… to be critical of Flaherty’s manipulation of Nanook… but then that is the inevitability of the film idiom” (Singer 1992: 264). Despite such manipulations, “many of his scenes remain astonishingly beautiful… and, above all, his image of humanness… has had universal appeal” (Weinberger 1994: 6-7). Sensitivity and consideration for another’s life and values would appear to be axiomatic in producing not just interesting but ethically sound ethnographic films. Flaherty would show the day’s filming to the Inuit to check their own responses to the content of the film, “he was he first to screen the daily rushes for the principals for their comments” (Weinberger 1994: 6), and this directorial style gave the participants their own say in how the filming unfolded. This may not so readily be said of all ethnographic endeavours, the impulse to record in as unbiased and unobtrusive a way as possible may result in filmmakers attempting to be so invisible that they avoid any sense of reflexivity at all. This privileging of the camera and of looking, could be construed as another example of colonialism, the intrusion of the lens as an abuse of power that involves “the effacement of any marks of the presence of the photographer’s [own] culture” (Pinney 1992: 76). And the collecting of disappearing cultures on film may likewise be considered as a collecting of cultural data to be filed and consumed at will by Western intellectuals. For Flaherty as for present ethnographic filmmakers, there is a fine line between intrusiveness and genuine interest, between a hierarchical sense of ownership of the images and a democratic sprit of cooperation between filmmaker and those who are the film’s subjects. For people and cultures who do not have access to methods of recording themselves or others, such lack of access can lead to an imbalance of power. Further, they may not comprehend the broader field their images may be disseminated upon, “informants may be keen to collaborate without actually engaging fully with why a researcher would want to video record certain activities” (Pink 2001: 40).

Margaret Mead speaks with a sense of urgency about the vanishing cultures and societies of the world and advocates the use of filming to capture these moments before they are lost. She sees the role of anthropology as recognising how “forms of human behaviour still extant will inevitably disappear” (Mead 1995: 3). She laments the rapid loss of cultures as, “all over the world… irreproducible behaviours are disappearing” (ibid: 4). In an impassioned piece, she charts the loss of these cultures and extols the validity of ethnographic filming, her passion could be regarded as not necessarily taking into account the actual individuals she regards as worthy of filming. “The isolated group or emerging new nation that forbids filmmaking… will lose far more than it gains”. (Mead 1995: 7-8). Issues of trust and respect emerge here, for all her ardour about the permanent loss of cultures, Mead could be missing the point that many of these cultures will continue to exist in an ever developing form, and their own sense of value and worth may be unchanged regardless of whether they are filmed for posterity or not. The desire to capture on film before change eradicates practices and social processes could be driven by a fear of change and a lack of recognition that all cultures are likely to alter and adapt to some extent. And though, as with all change some things may be lost to the detriment of the culture, so too there can be gains.

Ethnographic film is deservedly valued by anthropologists as capturing diverse and isolated groups from all over the world, but to imagine other cultures are best when static and unchanging is to misunderstand the purpose of ethnographic study. The very nature of visual images tends to fix life at a certain point, denying the future reality any recognition, “the inherent problem in visual representation is… that it reifies and freezes” (Hastrup 1992: 19). This not to say that Mead is necessarily wrong in wanting to capture changing cultures before their practices are lost forever, rather, the fear of loss suggests that some ethnographers consider changing lifestyles lack the validity of earlier, more ‘authentic’ ones. Whilst it is of value to observe and record customs and to celebrate their breadth of diversity, it is unhelpful to dictate how these may be recorded for posterity; for cultures that prioritise verbal acts of memory; images may not be of such importance.

“The appropriateness of visual methods should not simply be judged on questions of whether the methods suit the objectives… evaluations should be informed by… how visual knowledge is interpreted in a cross-cultural context” (Pink 2001: 33).

This sense of urgency and loss may, however, have some weight, in Anne Makepeace’s filmComing to Light, she uncovers the work of Edward Curtis and his extensive recording of the North American Indians. Curtis utilised a romantic and staged photographing of the culture, often depicting individuals in their best clothes and removing signs of contemporary life such as clocks. But this has been appreciated as a reminder of lost traditions for a nation who to some extent have lost their sense of identity in the larger mass and press of American society. With this valuing of former and to some extent lost traditions, perhaps Mead has a point, the archiving of tribal and cultural practices can be valued from within the culture itself. Makepeace observes that the arguments about Curtis’s staging of some photographs were of more concern in academic circles than with those whose ancestors appear in Curtis’s portraits. “In general, the people who criticize Curtis are not Indians; they're people in academia who need to make a point” (N.Y. Times 2001). Arguments about validity perhaps best lie with those who are being recorded rather than with academics who may regard the filming of disappearing cultures as an intellectual exercise more than one of memory and identity. In this instance, the work of Edward Curtis has been reinstated by Makepeace as an archive of value to the North American Indians and a reminder to the wider American community about who existed first on the land. “When we make ethnographic films, we utilise the most powerfully pervasive memory-making device in the history of human culture.” (Kuehnast 1992: 191). In a country where the Native Americans have suffered from their lands being taken and their culture diluted, this sense of history and roots provides a valuable community identity. It is possible that for this group, Mead’s assertions are correct, “department after department… fail[s] to include filming… while the behaviour that film could have caught… for the joy of the descendants… disappears” (Mead 1995: 4).

Such records, however, can only ever be fragmentary, a partial representation of one version of reality, in the case of Makepeace’s film, they were part of a jigsaw alongside oral traditions and still surviving memories, particularly as some of the children Curtis photographed are still alive today. Makepeace’s film and her own painstaking recreation of Curtis’s struggles and the resulting photographs gave the subjects’ descendants valuable support in more fully establishing their identity in the face of a wider community that did not share their history. “Because these are disappearing types of behaviour, we need to preserve them in forms that will permit the descendants to repossess their cultural heritage.” (Mead 1995: 8). If indeed it is correct that “America may be considered one of the visual imperialists of the world” (Kuehnast 1992: 184), projecting and enjoying a near world-wide reach of its own selective images, then Curtis’s work, revitalised and framed through Makepeace’s film stands as an antidote, her work and persistence in bringing Curtis’s photographs to prominence have given a people back their sense of self. As an act of ethnography, this serves as a re-writing of a people into a new and deepened meaning of what it means to participate in and experience their culture. Although some purists may see the Native Americans’ re-adoption of some practices as a pastiche, for the individuals themselves, it would appear they have recognised Curtis’s work as a valuable document and have been more than able to interpret it for themselves in a way that sits well with their own values and sense of tradition. Ultimately, the ethnographic film can claim few rights as to the ownership of the images, or their subsequent interpretation. Criticisms ranged against ethnographic films have regarded them as “extending anthropology’s indecent appropriation of the voice of colonised peoples” (MacDougall 1995: 220). Makepeace’s film has been instrumental in reengaging people with their ancestry and their interpretation of Curtis’s work has been an act of relative autonomy, giving them the right to take the film and the images the film portrayed and reinvest them in their culture.

In Curtis’s film In the land of the War Canoes (1914), he portrays the Kwakiutls in British Columbia, this film documents a dramatised version of the culture, its values and practices, in a feature length piece. “After 1910 a few films about non-European societies appeared that suggested a dawning interest in an indigenous point of view.” (MacDougall 1995: 228-9). Curtis’s film was instrumental in setting out a template for a style of ethnographic narrative which was taken up and used by Flaherty some years later. Again he has been criticised for romanticising a culture in his depiction of a tale of tribal love and revenge. As suggested above, critics have noted that in his photographic work he has removed signs of contemporary life from the images, and In the land of the War Canoes is considered by some to freeze a culture, setting it apart from the wider community and depicting it as unchanging when in fact it was altering. Similarly, his work has been seen as too simplistic, resisting a more complex reading of a people, as even “the simplest human events unfold in a tangle of attendant activities, emotions, [and] motivations” (Weinberger 1994: 12). Despite these and other criticisms, the film is considered by many as a primary example of an ethnographic film, meticulously portraying a rich and vibrant culture. Curtis used a storyline to explicate to a wider audience Kwakiutl culture and practice, providing dramatic tension to convey the participant’s experiences and trials in a way that would enable an audience to understand and empathise with them. Thus, from its earliest days, “the filmic forms of knowledge produced in… ethnographic film are necessarily entwined with the fictional cinematic forms of Hollywood” (Devereaux 1995: 4).

The issues of representation and validity persist, from the early ethnographic films to present, and notionally, more informed ones. In Curtis’s work, which was groundbreaking in its depiction of a people, despite using emerging techniques of story telling, the aims of ethnographic films are evident as “a form intended to mediate across cultural boundaries” (Ginsburg 1995: 259). His dedication to detail and photographic sense of scene-setting convey, albeit in a fictionalised way, more perhaps than some ethnographic films that have had access to much more sophisticated technology. In part this could be because of his ignorance, given the nascent form of his craft at the time, of academic arguments for and against ethnographic filming of cultures and customs. Working as a pioneer, he took the stylised forms of story-telling and mythology to record the practices and beliefs of a culture that would have been unknown to most audiences. However earnest these representations, however, they can only ever reveal a portion of the truth, as in all ethnographic fieldwork, “records can never be exhaustive. They remain selective accounts of what actually happened… frozen images” (Hastrup 1992: 15). Despite the fact that any film can only bring remnants of the truth, Curtis’s work would appear to have stood the test of time, he brought a culture to the attention of his audience and although those images are inevitably consumed by the dominant culture, in part merely for the pleasure of watching, his work remains valid and pertinent.

Set against quite a different backdrop, the work of Dziga Vertov inhabits an urban setting and embraces and appears to celebrate technology and the advancements of humanity. Whilst the work of Curtis, Flaherty and Makepeace valorises cultures that may appear timeless to some eyes, or at least slow to change, Vertov draws upon the swiftly changing metropolis and its inhabitants. The film is open to many interpretations, partly because Vertov uses innovative techniques and sometimes openly acknowledges the camera’s presence, the style invites debate and an imaginative ownership of what is being watched. The viewer may more readily be able to place their own reading upon what they are observing due to the open style of filming whereby Vertov lets the camera run seemingly with little directorial input.

“Reflexive documentary… arose from a desire to make the conventions of representation themselves more apparent and to challenge the impression of reality… the viewer’s attention is drawn to the device as well as the effect”. (Nichols 1991: 33)

Vertov’s inclusion of the camera’s own possibilities and the presence of the camera operator in some shots is a significant detour from other ethnographic films of the time, “the veil of illusory absence is shorn away” (ibid: 44). As a critique of fictionalised narratives and escapist fantasy, Vertov strove to detail ordinary people in their daily lives and work, from a socialist perspective this suggested the importance of labour and industry as a way towards progress and change. His approach is a reflexive act that openly admits to the artifice of filmmaking, particularly as he employs many camera tricks such as the split screen and freeze frame. In this reading, his film is an experimental and early detour from the instructive and observational films as well as more fictionalised accounts produced during his life time; he rejected dramatisation in favour of the realism of life unfolding. As a social document and film concerned with depicting people, Vertov is fervent in his desire to record ‘the people’, and yet his own beliefs and values, from a contemporary perspective seem dedicated more to the greater impulse of the Soviet era. People in the film appear reduced to being part of the machine, industrial units that lose any sense of individual characteristics and personal values and beliefs. They are portrayed almost as tools of the greater good, striving through physical toil towards a collective goal and are devoid of any real individuality. In his symbolic city of ceaseless activity the more personal aspects of Curtis or Flaherty’s films, and the new found relevance of Makepeace’s documentary are absent. For all Vertov’s desire to depict the truth in as unbiased a way as possible, he proves himself to be immersed in his own culture and time.

Vertov’s belief is in the eyewitness role of the camera, presenting what he might consider is an unmediated reality which uses the camera “not in its egotism but in its willingness to reveal people with absolutely no pretence” (Vertov quoted in Rouch 1995: 87). Perhaps his seeming commitment to the neutrality of filming is reflected in more recent opinions on the role of ethnographic documentation, where “due to the apparent materiality of [films]… they have been perceived as accurate records of the ethnographic reality” (Hastrup 1992: 13). Such an assertion can never, of course, be the whole truth; films are valuable, but only in reflecting one aspect of anthropology, filtered through the producer’s own choices and production values. All forms of documentation have their own merit in bringing knowledge and understanding to social processes,

“it is impossible to rank visual and textual representations of ethnography in terms of different degrees of accuracy. Rather they display different kinds of accuracy”. (Hastrup 1992: 14)

As an experimental process, Vertov’s work has a place in the canon of ethnographic films, as a strong assertion of his own technique being the correct or truthful one; he stands on more tenuous ground. His commitment to Kino-Pravda, filmed truth, is an important advance in the development of ethnographic filmmaking, but as a singular approach it can alienate its subjects. “Many reflexive texts… present the filmmaker… less as a participant-observer than as an authoring agent.” (Nichols 1991: 58). A postmodern approach may be more constructive, one that accepts “ethnographic knowledge and text can only ever be a subjective construction, a ‘fiction’ that represents only the ethnographer’s version of reality.” (Pink 2001: 19). Inevitably, each person’s version of reality is their own and all knowledge is filtered through a range of perceptions and consciousness, Vertov’s work stands as a social text that records more than he intended. Where some early ethnographic films sought to detail the inhabitants of distant lands in a stereotyped way, Vertov’s style wished to let the camera speak for itself and for people’s lives to be depicted without comment or, he believed, bias. Like Flaherty, he approached his subject in an innovative way, “Vertov was doing sociology without knowing it and… Flaherty… ethnography also without knowing it” (Rouch 1995: 86). Both practitioners had to break new ground and developed their own ways of doing so, Flaherty and Vertov “had to resolve those problems which always present themselves… techniques… were still quite elementary” (ibid: 87).

It would seem that issues which troubled early ethnographic film still have some hold today, although sophisticated techniques now exist, the fact remains that representations are problematic. There is always a gap, even in the best films, we are not “usually asked to see from a literal perspective… but rather from a position in fictive space” (MacDougall 1995: 226). This is inevitable as we can only ever partially comprehend another’s thoughts and motives, and film can not easily be claimed as a truth when matters such as editorial decisions, ownership of the images and the reasons for filming in the first place are considered. With the earliest anthropological films, the opportunity to record disappearing cultures for academia and a broader public led to a multiplicity of techniques and methodologies. Vertov experimented with his approach to production and editing to bring a social document which is still challenging and exciting to watch. Similarly Flaherty and Curtis produced films that are still discussed as being part of the range of broadly ethnographic footage worth studying. Makepeace revisited Curtis’s work and to the eyes of some she encountered, his photography held more than novelty or aesthetic value, it evoked a deeper meaning too. Each of these filmmakers has produced work which, once out of their hands has been open to multiple interpretations. The films have provoked many points of view and contributed to an increasingly “complex understanding of a cultural consciousness … construct[ing] a way of looking at the world that is intersubjective and… communal” (MacDougall 1995: 250). As a means towards a deeper understanding of other peoples and cultures, the ethnographic film continues to serve the aims that propelled its earliest work, informing, raising issues for debate and destabilising power relations as interpretations render different readings and meanings from film.


作为代表性的文化和社会人类学的一种手段,通过电影的文件已经在人类学家的一个长期工具套件。从最早尝试拍摄遥远的文化,使他们的生活,观众知道,有时笨拙,涉及有许多技巧,并在其他时间生产的生动,如果其他生命的部分例子,移动图像有助于塑造一个支离破碎的理解的世界。然而,这个零碎的性质本身,人类学电影的角色,很多讨论的论坛和视觉的优点产生了加热和正在进行的辩论,以及人种学研究的文本分析。早期电影拍摄的一般消费寻求简单的场景描绘,其原始值被观众新奇的运动图像中的兴趣, “迷人的,因为他们的虚幻的力量......以及异国情调”(冈宁1990 : 57)的依据。 ,作为叙事形式在一定程度上取代这些最早的例子,因此出现了人类学电影的开端。在早期的电影中,无论是视觉上占主导地位的结构,以及那些与叙事主线,技术本身被庆祝和展示。电影在这个最早的形式显然不是如此关注与伦理的代表性和客观性和主观性之间的斗争,但主要目的是提供基于技术进步的视觉刺激和令人兴奋的体验。这样的一个开始,电影的基础上的新颖性看,似乎从目前的拍摄方法和实践很长的路要走,但是, “在这种原始的世界,我们发现结构诱人预言一些我们今天所知道的” (沃恩1990年: 63 ) 。早期的电影可能已经描绘人们在日常的任务,工作,购物或打球,没有这么多的纪录片查询,但提供了个人和社会团体,在某种程度上值得观看和录制,观众的乐趣或指令。虽然不能称为其目的明显的人种学等图像,观察各社会群体的人,他们的日常生存和网络移动仍然在人类学的研究和人类利益的心脏。
“影像无处不在......他们有着千丝万缕编织我们的个人身份,叙事,生活方式,文化和社会以及历史,空间和真理”的定义。 (粉红2001 :17) 。
随着时间的推移,小说作品,更加自觉地线性拍摄计划取代了早期的“能源形式的眼镜朝公认的旁观者,而不是对...叙事” (射1990: 59)基于字符的基本情况向内向外移动。弗莱厄蒂在北方的纳努克“(1922) ,是公认的第一个长篇纪录片描绘了”纳努克“和他的家人的生活。制造的时候,摄像机笨拙和勉强便携,许多拍摄这部纪录片上演,一些宿舍的做法认为是不道德的,但也是可以理解的考虑繁琐的设备状态的时间。被记录在这个例子中打捞人种学,狩猎和生存技能,被超越的新方法虽然在重新制作的方式,戏剧性的牌照,更依靠多年来,推动,使叙事结构。薄膜为基础的人类学这个早期的例子,也许目前的真实性和道德的问题首次提出和挣扎。纳努克“不同的讨论,其真实性,造假,其浪漫主义” (麦克杜格尔1995 : 229) 。它作为一种文化双方书面证据,还提供了一个叙事的故事和情节,吸引了观众的因纽特人的替代共享,有时,危机四伏的生活。弗莱厄蒂的方法,也可说是比一些当代文化的渲染更多的尊重,因为他的创新技术提供高达“的土著人作为英雄的电影... [它]是不是在平常幻想的写照高贵的野蛮” ( 1995年麦克杜格尔:230 ) 。
弗莱厄蒂的工作有关的消失的文化,并在所有的社会变化的性质问题,他记录文化技术变革之中,狩猎和提供庇护所,在那里适应的方法,和他管理维护,尽管一些精心重建场景,尊重感。在大多数情况下,虽然这是值得商榷的,他避免特权眼镜对个人在他的拍摄,但它承认,某些场景欠下了讲故事比现实。 “这很容易......关键,弗莱厄蒂的操纵纳努克......但后来,这是不可避免的电影成语” (歌手, 1992 :264 ) 。尽管这样的操作, “他的许多场景依然美得惊人...... ,高于一切的为人,他的形象有普遍的吸引力” ( 1994年温伯格: 6-7) 。灵敏度和代价的人生观和价值观,似乎是不言自明的生产不仅仅是有趣的,但道德健全的民族志电影。弗莱厄蒂会显示当天的拍摄因纽特电影内容检查自己的反应, “他是他第一次筛选他们的意见” ( 1994年温伯格: 6 )校长的日常灯心草,和这个导演的风格给参与者自己说,在如何展开拍摄。这可能不是那么容易说所有的人种努力,偏见,并尽可能不显眼的方式记录的冲动可能会导致制片人企图是无形的,他们避免在任何意义上的自反性。这种相机和寻找享有特权,可以被解释作为殖民主义的另一个例子,作为一个滥用权力,涉及“在抹杀摄影师的[自己]文化存在的任何痕迹” ( 1992年宾利入侵的镜头:76 )。和收集消失的文化在胶片上可能同样被视为一个提交与消费意愿,西方知识分子的文化数据收集。对于目前民族志电影工作者的弗莱厄蒂侵扰和真正的利益之间,有一条细线,图像的所有权之间的层次感,导演和那些谁是电影的主题之间的合作和民主精神。对于人民和文化谁没有访问记录自己或他人的方法的访问,如缺乏可导致权力的失衡。此外,他们可能无法理解他们的图像可能会传播后,更广阔的领域, “举报人可能是敏锐的合作,而实际上完全从事的研究员为什么会想要录像的某些活动” (粉红色2001 :40) 。
玛格丽特·米德说,与世界消失的文化和社会的紧迫感和拍摄捕捉这些时刻,他们失去了之前提倡使用。她认为人类学的作用认识如何“尚存的人类行为方式将不可避免地消失” ( 1995年米德:3 ) 。她感叹文化的迅速丧失,“世界各地的...不可复制的行为消失” (同上:4 ) 。中一个慷慨激昂的一块,她图表这些文化和颂扬民族志拍摄的有效性的损失,她的热情可能被视为不一定考虑到现实的个人的拍摄,她认为值得。 “隔离组或新兴禁止电影制作的新国家将失去远远超过它获得” 。 (米德, 1995 : 7-8 ) 。信任和尊重的问题在这里出现,她所有的热情文化的永久丧失,米德可以缺少了这一点,许多这些文化将继续在不断发展的形式存在,可能是自己的感觉价值和价值不变的,无论他们是否为后人或不拍摄。可以捕捉电影的愿望变动前根除做法和社会进程的认可,所有的文化都可能在一定程度上改变和适应变化的恐惧和缺乏驱动。虽然,所有的变化有些东西可能会丢失损害文化,所以也能有所斩获。
捕捉来自世界各地的多样化和孤立的群体,是当之无愧的价值人类学民族志电影,但想象其他文化是最好的时候是静止不变的误解民族志研究的目的。视觉影像的本质,往往在某一个点来解决生活,否认未来的现实的认可, “可视化表示的固有的问题是......它具体化,并冻结” ( 1992年•海斯翠普: 19) 。这并不是说,米德想捕捉不断变化的文化是永远失去了他们的做法之前,必然是错误的,而损失的恐惧表明,一些人类学家认为,人们生活方式的改变缺乏有效性更早,更'真实'的。虽然它是观察和记录值的习俗和多样性,以庆祝他们的广度,它是无益的决定可能会被记录为后人优先考虑内存的言语行为的文化;图像未必是如此重要。
“视觉的方法是否恰当,不应该简单地判断问题的方法是否适合目标评价应被告知... ,视觉知识是如何解释在跨文化语境” (粉红色2001 : 33) 。
此感的紧迫感和损失,但是,有一些重量在安妮麦思平的电影预购轻,她揭示了工作的爱德华·柯蒂斯和他的广泛的北美印第安人的记录。柯蒂斯利用一个浪漫而上演的文化拍摄,经常描绘个人在他们最好的衣服和消除当代生活的迹象,如时钟。不过,这已经提醒赞赏,因为一个国家在一定程度上已经失去了他们在较大的质量和按美国社会认同感的失去的传统。有了这个估值前,在一定程度上失去了传统,米德也许有一点,归档的价值可以从文化本身的部落和文化习俗。麦思平指出,柯蒂斯的一些照片分期的争论在学术界更多的关注比他们的祖先出现在柯蒂斯的肖像。 “在一般情况下,人谁批评柯蒂斯是不是印度人,他们是学术界人士需要做出点” (纽约时报, 2001 ) 。关于有效性的争论也许是最好的在于那些正在与学术界作为一个知识分子行使一个以上的记忆与认同,谁可能把拍摄消失的文化,而不是记录。在这种情况下,爱德华·柯蒂斯的工作已经恢复麦思平,作为北美印第安人价值的归档,提醒谁更广泛的美国社会存在的土地上。 “当我们把民族志电影,我们利用最有力普遍的决策内存设备,在人类文化史上。 ” ( Kuehnast , 1992 :191 ) 。在一个国家里遭受土著美国人从他们的土地和他们的文化稀释,这个意义上的历史和根源提供了一个有价值的社会身份。这是可能的,这组,米德的说法是正确的, “部门后,部门...失败[S ]到包括拍摄...同时,电影可能已经陷入...的后裔欢乐...的行为消失” (米德1995 : 4 ) 。
然而,这样的记录,只能永远是零碎的,一个部分代表现实的一个版本,在麦思平的电影的情况下,他们是拼图一起口头传统的一部分,并仍然存活的回忆,尤其是当一些柯蒂斯拍下的孩子是今天仍然活着。麦思平的电影和她自己潜心娱乐柯蒂斯的斗争和所产生的照片给受试者的后人宝贵的支持,更充分地建立自己的身份,在面对一个更广泛的社会没有分享他们的历史。 “因为这些类型的行为消失,我们需要保留它们的形式,将允许的后裔,以收回他们的文化遗产。 ” ( 1995年米德: 8 ) 。如果确实它是正确的, “美国可能会被认为是1的世界视觉帝国主义的” ( 1992年Kuehnast : 184 ) ,投影和享受一个靠近世界各地达到其自己选择的图像,然后柯蒂斯的工作,通过振兴和陷害麦思平的电影代表作为解毒剂,将柯蒂斯的照片,以突出她的工作和持久性都给予了人们回到他们的自我意识。作为民族志的行为,作为一个人到一个新的重新写作和深化参与并体验他们的文化意味着什么意思。虽然一些纯粹主义者可能会看到的土著美国人“重新采纳作为拼贴的一些做法,对个人本身,它会出现他们已经认可柯蒂斯的作品作为一份有价值的文件和已被超过能够为自己解释它的方式与坐在自己的价值观和传统意义上的。最终,民族志电影可以要求一些权利的图像,随后将其解释的所有权。对民族志电影批评不等,视他们为“延长人类学的不雅拨款殖民地人民” (麦克杜格尔1995 : 220)的声音。麦思平的电影一直在帮助人们与他们的祖先和他们解释柯蒂斯的工作一直是一个相对自治的行为,让他们有权采取电影和电影描绘的图像,并再投资,他们在他们的文化回弹。
在柯蒂斯的电影在战争独木舟的土地(1914年) ,他描绘了不列颠哥伦比亚省Kwakiutls ,这部电影记录了戏剧化的版本的文化,它的价值观和做法,一套长片。 “ 1910年后出现了有关非欧洲社会的几部电影,提出了曙光在土著利益的角度来看。 ” (麦克杜格尔1995 : 228-9 ) 。柯蒂斯的电影是在民族志叙事被采取弗莱厄蒂使用若干年后的样式模板。他又一直被批评为浪漫的文化在他的部落的爱和复仇的故事描绘。上述建议,批评人士指出,在他的摄影作品中,他已经从图像中删除了当代生活的迹象,有些人认为在战争独木舟土地冻结了一种文化,它除了从更广泛的社会和描绘不变的时候,其实它正在改变。同样,他的作品已被看作是过于简单化了,一个人的抵抗更复杂的阅读,甚至是“人类最简单的事件展开纠结随之而来的活动,情绪和动机” ( 1994年温伯格:12 ) 。尽管这些和其他的批评,该片被认为是由许多民族志电影作为一个主要的例子,精心塑造了一个丰富和充满活力的文化。柯蒂斯用一个故事情节来阐明一个更广泛的观众夸扣特尔人的文化和实践,提供了戏剧性的张力,传达参与者的经验和试验的方式,使观众理解和同情他们。因此,从最早的日子“的电影形式的知识生产的民族志电影虚构的好莱坞电影形式的”一些(Devereaux 1995 : 4)必然交织在一起。
代表性和有效性的问题仍然存在,从早期的民族志电影到现在,名义上,更明智的。在柯蒂斯的工作,这是开创性的在其描绘的一个人,尽管利用新兴技术,讲故事“的一种形式,旨在调解跨越文化边界” ( 1995年金斯伯格:259) ,民族志电影的目的是显而易见的。他的奉献场景设定的细节和摄影的感觉,尽管在一个虚构的方式传达,更或许比一些民族志电影已经获得更先进的技术。在某种程度上,这可能是因为他的无知,给新生的形式的时候,他的手艺学理和反对民族志的文化和习俗拍摄。工作作为一个先行者,他花了程式化的形式讲故事和神话的记录,大多数观众会一直默默无闻的习俗和信仰的一种文化。然而,认真的这些陈述,但是,他们永远只能揭示了部分真理,的所有田野调查,记录永远无法穷尽。他们究竟发生了什么......保持选择性帐户冻结的图像“ ( 1992年•海斯翠普:15 ) 。尽管事实上,任何电影可以只把残存的真相,柯蒂斯的工作会出现到已经站在了时间的考验,他带来了一种文化观众对他的注意,尽管这些图像都不可避免地消耗主流文化,部分只是看的乐趣,他的工作仍然是有效的和有针对性的。
“自反纪录片......源于一个愿望,表示自己更明显的约定,挑战现实的印象......观众的注意力被吸引到设备以及效果”。 (尼科尔斯1991 :33 )
维尔托夫的包括相机本身的可能性,并存在一些镜头的摄像机操作是一个重要的时间绕道从其他民族志电影, “虚幻缺席的面纱被剪了” (同上:44 ) 。虚构叙事的批判和逃避现实的幻想,维尔托夫努力普通人在他们的日常生活和工作细节,从社会主义的角度来看,这表明劳动力和产业的重要性,作为一种走向进步和变化。他的做法是自反的行为,公开承认电影制作的技巧,特别是他雇用了许多相机的技巧,如画面分割和冻结帧。在此阅读,他的电影是一种实验和早期的迂回从启发和观测的电影以及更多的虚构账目在他的生命时间,他拒绝了赞成的生活展开的现实主义戏剧。作为一种社会的文件和电影有关描述人们,维尔托夫热切的在记录他的愿望, “人民” ,但自己的信仰和价值观,从当代的角度来看似乎专门苏联时代的冲动更大。人们在电影中出现,降低机,工业单位,失去了任何意义上的个人特点和个人的价值观和信仰的一部分。他们几乎被描绘更大的利益的工具,通过物理辛劳努力实现集体目标并没有任何真正的个性。在他的象征意义的城市不断的活动更多的个人方面的柯蒂斯或弗莱厄蒂的电影,和小说家的纪录片新发现的相关性是不存在的。维尔托夫的所有愿望,尽可能公正的方式描绘出真相,他证明自己沉浸在他自己的文化和时间。
维尔托夫的信念是在目击者的摄像头作用,其中使用摄像头“并不在其利己主义,但其意愿,以揭示人绝对没有借口” (维尔托夫报价在1995年鲁什: 87一个中介的现实提出他可能会考虑什么) 。也许他似乎拍摄的中立性的承诺体现在更近的意见的作用人种学文件,其中“由于明显的实质性[电影] ...他们一直被认为是准确记录人种学的现实”( 1992年•海斯翠普: 13)。当然,这种说法从来没有,可以全部事实真相的电影是有价值的,但只能反映一个方面,人类学,通过生产者自己的选择和生产值过滤。所有形式的文档有自己的优点,对社会进程带来的知识和理解,
“这是不可能的排名民族志的视觉和文字表述方面不同程度的准确性。相反,它们显示不同种类的准确性“ 。 ( 1992 :14 Hastrup )
维尔托夫的工作作为一个实验的过程中,有一个地方在佳能的民族志电影,作为一个强大的断言是正确的或真实的自己的技术;他站在更脆弱的地面上。基诺“真理报”他的承诺,拍摄了真相,在民族志电影制作的发展是一个重要的进步,但作为一个不寻常的方法,它可以疏远其臣民。 “许多自反文本呈现的电影制片人......作为一个参与者观察者不是作为创作剂。 ” ( 1991年尼科尔斯: 58) 。一种后现代的方法可能更有建设性,一个接受的“民族知识和文字只能永远是一个主观的建设, ”虚构“ ,表示只有人种学者的现实版本。 ” (粉红色2001 : 19) 。不可避免的是,每个人的现实版本是自己的,所有的知识都通过一系列的观念和意识过滤,维尔托夫的工作表示作为一个社会的文字记录比他更打算。一些早期的民族志电影维尔托夫的风格寻求细节千篇一律的方式在一个遥远的国度的居民,希望让相机为自己说话,人们的生活被描绘无评论,他相信,偏置。弗莱厄蒂一样,他走近他的主题以创新的方法“,维尔托夫在做什么不知道它...弗莱厄蒂...不知道”( 1995年鲁什:86)民族志也社会学。从业者有新的突破和发展自己的方式这样做,弗莱厄蒂和维尔托夫“解决这些问题,它总是展示自己的技术还相当初级” (同上:87 ) 。
这似乎仍然有一些问题困扰早期民族志电影保持到今天,虽然现在先进的技术存在,但事实上,该声明是有问题的。总是有差距的,即使是在最好的电影,我们是不是“通常要求从文字的角度看......但在虚构的空间,而从一个位置” (麦克杜格尔1995年:226) 。这是必然的,因为我们只能部分地理解他人的想法和动机,电影不能轻易声称编辑决定,摆在首位拍摄图像的所有权及原因等事宜时,被认为是作为一个真理。最早的人类学影片,记录消失的文化学术界和更广泛的公众的机会,导致多重的技术和方法。维尔托夫尝试用他的方法来制作和编辑带来了社会的文件,这仍然是具有挑战性和令人兴奋的观看。同样,弗莱厄蒂和柯蒂斯制作的电影,仍然值得研究讨论范围广泛的人种学镜头的一部分。麦思平再访柯蒂斯的工作和一些她遇到的眼睛,他的摄影作品举行超过新颖性或审美价值,它也引起了更深层次的含义。这些电影制作人已经产生,一旦脱离他们的手一直开到多个解释工作。电影已经引起了许多观点和文化意识的日益复杂的认识做出了贡献......构造[ ]看在世界上是主体间的一种方式和社区“ (麦克杜格尔1995 : 250) 。民族志电影作为一种手段更深入地了解其他国家的人民和文化,继续以服务的宗旨,推动其最早的工作,通知,提高问题的辩论和动摇的权力关系的诠释呈现不同的读数,并从电影的意义。